SPRINGFIELD — When the Supreme Court handed down two decisions Wednesday morning expanding the rights of gay and lesbian citizens in the U.S., former Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Justice John M. Greaney, who sat on the court that ruled same-sex marriage legal in Massachusetts in 2003, said he wasn't surprised.

"I predicted the court would come down this way on both of these cases," said Greaney, now a Suffolk University law professor, in a telephone interview from his home in Western Massachusetts. "I read the cases and believe the decisions were correct."

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court invalidated a provision of the federal Defense of Marriage Act that has prevented married gay couples from receiving more than 1,100 tax, health and retirement benefits that are generally available to married people. When it did so, justices argued that DOMA violated principles of equal protection incorporated in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution rather than stating it was a states' right issue, making the ruling broader in nature.

Back in 2003, it was Greaney who wrote the concurring opinion of the state court on the Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health case that made Massachusetts the first state in the nation to legalize marriage between members of the same sex.

In this May 2011 Republican file photo, retired Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court John M. Greaney speaks during law day ceremonies at the Hampden County Superior Court in Springfield.

Greaney explained that Wednesday's Supreme Court decision means gay couples who are legally married in the 13 states and Washington, D.C., are immediately entitled to the same federal benefits as straight couples.

"That provision in DOMA that prevented gay couples from receiving roughly 1,100 benefits was ruled unconstitutional and is now gone," Greaney said. "This means married gay couples can file their federal taxes jointly, be notified if a spouse in the military is injured or killed and for the plaintiff in the DOMA case, avoid an enormous estate tax."

The former judge's reference to the "enormous" estate tax was in relation to the case that was at the heart of the Supreme Court's DOMA ruling Wednesday – United States v. Windsor.

The case involved Edith "Edie" Windsor suing after her life partner and same-sex spouse Thea Spyer died and she was forced to pay more than $363,000 in estate taxes that she would not have had to pay had her spouse been a man. The case was eventually taken up by the American Civil Liberties Union and became the case that changed the 1996 law permanently.

When asked to reflect on his part in shifting the pendulum in support of gay marriage in the U.S. based on the 2003 state ruling legalizing it in Massachusetts, Greaney said that in retrospect, he is proud of his stance.

"It has become a legacy sort of thing but at the time, I never intended it to be that. I was just doing what I thought the state constitution permitted," Greaney said. "I had some sense that other states would follow, but never thought that so many other states would follow so quickly. But as I look back now, I'm certainly proud that we were able to have such an effect."

He said that the court's striking down of California's Proposition 8, which made gay marriage in that state illegal, is a "highly technical ruling" that will take time to sort out, although the spirit of the ruling clearly states that it is unconstitutional for such a law to be in place.

"An interesting side note to that is that polls in California recently indicated that if Proposition 8 was back on the ballot, it would be defeated," Greaney said. "That in addition to the Supreme Court's ruling says a lot about where the sentiment is in regards to same sex marriage."